We shall see, but Suffolk University has pulled out of polling NC, VA, and FL stating that it is "overwhelming" and that Romney will take these states. He stated that this was the conclusion even before the debate.

He may be mistaken, but this is a very bold statement from a man whose credibility and living are based upon polling. And Suffolk University is hardly a right wing conservative outfit.

In the end, same thing that I have been stating, the incumbent is a known quantity and he cannot get above 47%, not likely to do so ever. And this was before the debate, when Romney really had not introduced himself to the country.

If this is the case (and certainly pollsters have been wrong before, no matter how confident they sound), then Romney does not need to take Ohio to win. Ohio would make it practically a sure thing for Romney.

But spin it as you may Tamhas and all. Certainly polling has been used by you when it suited you, and I told you I did not believe all the polling for the reasons I cited so no need to argue the nitty gritty on issues that were wrong at their core to begin with.

Appropriate to the name of the site, this seems like hot air and premature. Mr. Silver currently has

Obama RomneyNC 48.0 51.3VA 49.9 49.2FL 49.5 49.9OH 50.7 48.2

So, NC doesn't look too good, but then it mostly hasn't. VA and FL look like races that one would want to keep close tabs on. OH still looks pretty safe for Obama.

More to the point, perhaps, we are in a period of very volatile polling. In particular, it appears that Romney got a strong bounce from the debate and the immediate coverage, but that this faded fairly quickly, perhaps in part because of the jobs report and perhaps partly the press getting less rabid.

Any "we don't need to pay attention any more" at this point is wishful thinking, self-deception, naiveite, or an attempt at manipulation.

The polls shockingly, without notice, prior to the debate, on NOTHING, SUDDENLY, go closer as October got here. I told you all along they were wrong, and biased, and I believe often on purpose. So don't give me an average of such polls.

This pollster, Suffolk University, one of the premier polling outfits, a man and his institution that has put his reputation and possible career on the line, and he says, using pre-debate numbers (much less post debate) that NC, VA, and FL are Romneys. No need to poll anymore in those states.

He may prove wrong, but don't give me an average of faulty polls as a counter. The trend is the key in these things, and there is no clearer indication as to what is happening than what Suffolk poll has stated and revealed. Pulling out of these swing states in October! His career is dead if he is wrong, and he said it without a bead of sweat. Waste of time to continue polling there.

But you know, go with your survey of polls, that like the October jobs report, suddenly and shockingly changed.

Sorry, we are not that stupid.

No, Suffolk is not the end all, and I don't concede any of these states to Romney yet, but it SAYS MORE THAN ANY OF YOUR RHETORIC AND DATA DOES if you want an indication of where the actual polls are that a man put his career and reputation on the line like this, and has no doubt at all about it.

There are millions of pieces of data out there, but only a small percentage of this data means anything at al (same with stocks. They key is finding those bits. Something I am good at (or at least use to be quite profound at).

Tinker, what you are saying shows that you don't understand the nature of polling and care more about what you want to hear than what is good data. There is science here and good practice, but you would rather pick and choose results on what you want to hear. That might make you feel good in the short term, but it does not give you the best information. I don't like the recent shift in the polls, but I am willing to admit that it has occurred and consider what might happen next. Are you? Or are you going to keep grasping at straws for what feels good and then be surprised come election day?

Point being, there are multiple models, averages, and indicators which mostly show that the effect of the debate, so far, is to have erased the cushion which had built up for Obama since the conventions. But, that is a return to a point where the was still a significant Obama advantage. Like it or not, that is what the data tell us.

And, actually, it is the totality of the data, the patterns, the trends, the averages, which tell us something, not the isolated fragment which you happen to like.

Yes science and good practice. That is why I was correct in 2010 and you were wrong. I understand science and statistics, et al, and I understand how it works, and I understand how in lieu of say the science of quantum physics, the science of polling involves human implementation, limitations, budget constraints, assumptions, bias, et al, and yes Tamhas, I do have the uncanny ability to see through all the "human element" which you seem to imply does not exist and instead is just a science.

You live in your world, and I will live in the world where one can holistically take in all the data and intangibles and get down to the real and right answer. It is what I do.

Your claim of "I was right and you were wrong" may be personally satisfying, but has no basis in fact. My statements then, as now, were based heavily on Silver's model. It was very accurate then and I expect it to be very accurate now.

What is different is that then you forecast big gains early on with no actual data and your wishes, they weren't any more than that, came true ... but as the shift occurred, Mr. Silver tracked the shift.

Then Silver was wrong back then. You were on this board saying things won't be so bad for the Democrats. Has nothing to do with Obama, etc. It turned into a nearly unprecedented landslide, and was a utter rebuke of Obamacare.

But you know, the regime is now saying that they never said it was the Video in Libya despite the actual documented, verifiable, and unambigous facts. I guess that story is no longer operative and can be dismissed because we say we did not. And I guess you can do the same because you say you did not.

Whatever. You stick with polling is a "science" as accurate and as verifiable, and as unbiased as the laws of physics, which by the way, as we found out in Global Warming science, that the science itself was hijacked into politics. Wonder what happens to polling that is directly about politics?

The key here is "turned into". When you were confidently predicting landslide well in advance of the election, that position was not supported by the polls. It was an emotional position on your part. As the election approached, those polls changed and swung toward the position you wanted. So, it worked out for you, but not because you were right in the early call.

The same is true now. When you predict a result based on what you want, you risk disappointment because the electorate isn't following your feelings; they are following their own. When you cherry pick individual polls you are telling us more about your preferences than about the preferences of the electorate.

There is science to polling and statistics, but it is probabilistic. That is why all polls have a margin of error and why better or worse polling methodologies will produce different results. Did you see where Gallup is moving to 50% cellphones? Doesn't that make it likely they will come up with different numbers than Rasmussen with 0%?

Right now there is an interesting gap between the picture painted by state polls and that painted by national polls. There has been something of a gap for much of this election cycle since we have had enough state polls to notice. It is a 2-3 point difference with the state polls being more positive for Obama. Yes, the national polls are sometimes from bigger and more established firms, but not always. Yes, the national polls have larger sample sizes per polls, but there are a lot more state polls so the total sampled population is similar in size. How are you going to explain that based just on emotion?

And, actually, no, the science in climate change is not hijacked. There is a lot of fake science in the opposition, but the real science is the real science ... you just don't want to admit it ... another emotional decision not based on fact.

<<<The key here is "turned into". When you were confidently predicting landslide well in advance of the election, that position was not supported by the polls. It was an emotional position on your part. As the election approached, those polls changed and swung toward the position you wanted. So, it worked out for you, but not because you were right in the early call.>>>

No, it is called intuition. It is why statistics are only a tool. Not emotional, it is looking at reality and applying our gut, instincts, and sense of rationality, all mixed together to come up with the result.

Intuition based on no data is guessing, nothing better. It turned out the way you wanted once. And, that didn't make the data wrong because they tracked the change, just like they are tracking the change this time.

Saying "this position is not supported at the current time by existing data" doesn't preclude the possibility for the data to change. The change in polls post-debate is not because the polls suddenly got more right, but because attitudes changed.

Like stating that Global Warming science did not become politicized when the term "DENIERS" was substituted for the usual and customary term "CRITIC". Now why would they do that....think, think...oh yes, for politics. You either spin, or you cannot see what is transparently obvious to a third grader.

As for intuition, it takes into account all the surrounding circumstances and data, understanding where the data comes from, how it is obtained, who and why people are obtaining it, the history, et al.

Kind of like during W.W. II, German data gathering saw military build up in preparation for D-Day. The data was correct, but the analysis was wrong, as it was a fake base, with fake military, with mostly fake military equipment, and feigned inferences therefrom. But you know, the DATA, taken in ISOLATiON, was absolutely sound.

Same thing with your polls, as they were put out. But hey, take every bit of data you see at face value, without looking at it in context, of any sort, well, then you are no better than a computer. Again, good luck with that as well. As you are misapplying sttistics and polls when you view the data in that rigid lense that you appear to have.

Same when you make claims like Globsl Warming science was not politicized when even the very scientific language was changed to sit political purposes and put down ANY dissent. Science is all about dissent. Politics ia about shooting down dissent. This was not science when the language was changed to put dow dissent.

There is the electoral math. According to the Suffolk poll they are so sure that Romney will win North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, that they put their professional reputations on the line and have even stopped polling there.

Assuming these people at Suffolk are not fools, that puts NC, VA, FL in Romney's column (most likely). He is still not certain to win from there. But winning Ohio is really all he needs to do. Or winning a few other multiple state combinations that you can ascertained from the above article.

So no, there is no certainty, but it is so funny how, in a day, even before the debate, the polls suddenly got tight. Did something happen in that one day, or did the polls start to get serious when their reputations started to be on the line.

Whatever. Statistics don't change that rapidly for no reason, unless of course, methodology changes. Which I believe it did.

Like stating that Global Warming science did not become politicized when the term "DENIERS" was substituted for the usual and customary term "CRITIC". Now why would they do that....think, think...oh yes, for politics.

Well, actually I think the term is just as appropriate for this case as it is for people who deny the roundness of the earth or the earth rotating around the sun. "Critic" implies that there is a reasonable difference of opinion which is not easily decided one way or the other. Here we have a bunch of perfectly good science on one side and a bunch of crap and emotion on the other side, so "critic" doesn't seem like the appropriate term. Politics or no.

And the analogy to D-Day is just as false. No one is faking poll data. It is real data. It has real averages. One can interpret it in probabilistic terms. One can assign confidence intervals. Sure, at the end of all that there is still a role for interpretation, e.g., figuring out why the national data and the state data have a couple point discrepancy. But, that is an entirely different kind of activity than denying that the data exist and tell us something about where sentiment stands today.

Of course, there are other factors than sentiment such as how well that sentiment is going to translate into people actually showing up to cast their vote. But, hey, we have data on that too.

HUH??? One pollster decides to allocate their resources in one way and you take that it is given those are solid Romney????

Take a look at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ RCP is simple polling averages, no fancy model. They have them at .6 for Obama, tie, and 3.3 for Romney, all rated Toss Up. Deciding they are solid Romney on this basis is complete nonsense.

Why is the polls shifting for Romney a case of the pollsters "getting serious" but when they shifted for Obama post convention with much the same speed what was that. This is more selective paying attention to what you want to hear.

Tamhas, you said the unequivocal comments by the Suffolk pollsters, who were putting their entire reputation and profession on the line meant nothing. Lets check out the average of all polls. Guess they were not such an isolated outfit.

Must listen to the straight data, in an unthinking manner, never mind intuition, it is "science". Sorry, not. Statistics are a tool, an intuition was correct again rather than blind following data that is collected with a bias and for a purpose.

What is most astounding is that you are all for calling scientists who have skepticism over scientific data as "DENIERS" and thereby politicizing science because it agrees with your political perspective. The term, "critic" not adequate to your task as it is in every other scientific debate. Got it Tamhas.

You said just one poll, and then you said it is the trend, then it was not just one poll, and then the trend well, even with real clear politics,

Can you ascertain the trend?

And if Florida and North Carolina and Virginia are Romney's....those numbers look a bit more lop sided still, against Obama, as that is over 50 electroal votes that are actually Romney, and not toss ups.

You know, data, science, forget intuition, no politics involved at all in these surveys, despite the fact that UNDER OATH, indeed, the Edwards pollster said just the opposite.

A bit like how, UNDER OATH, the State Department said that there NEVER was any thought or indication of a video causing any of the issues in Libya, nor Egypt.

I have occasionally cited an individual poll which contradicted a point you or someone else made ... often, itself, a single poll. In that context, showing that there is not consensus is sufficient to provide rebuttal, especially if, as has often been the case, it is too early in some transition to judge where the balance is going to fall.

My pointing to the No Toss Ups map is that on balance the numbers still point to an Obama win. Picking three states, themselves all still close enough to be rated Toss Ups and at least one of which still shows an Obama advantage, and deciding that these are unquestionably going to Romney and this means that Romney has the election sewed up is simple nonsense.

RCP currently shows 201 total solid or leading Obama and 181 solid or leaning for Romney. Of the 12 states they have toss up totaling 156 votes, 8 have Obama on top for 93 and 3 have Romney on top for 34. FL is shown as a tie with 29.

Still too simplistic Tinker and too quick. I have covered all of this already.

Romney clearly got a big bounce from the debate and the press immediately following. There are suggestions that it may have been as much as 5 or 6 points for a day or two. There are indications that this bounce has faded. Most or all of the polls cited there are tracking polls, meaning that they cover a rolling period of 3, 5, or 7 days. That means that it takes a while for a bounce and fade to work its way through to the new numbers. So yes, as of right now, Romney's position is significantly improved over where it was pre-debate.

There are indications that some of this is enhanced enthusiasm on the part of the Republican voters making them more likely to respond to polls and more likely to be classified as likely voters. That can be significant in an actual election, of course, since it may make them more likely to actually vote, but it is not so much a change of decision as it is a change of enthusiasm, which is more fragile and more likely to shift, e.g., if Democrats are heartened by Biden's performance or if the next presidential debate has a different character.

So, I am not pretending that there has been a shift, just warning you not to be too cocky about the amount of certainty to attach to it.

Moreover, as I have also said before, there is about a 2 point difference between what the national tracking polls are telling us vs what the state polls are telling us. There are several possible explanations for this and we don't really have the data to decide. It is enough, however, to put Obama still on top and this is reflected in the electoral college numbers I cited. One indication of this is that Nate Silver now has a 5.2% probability that Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. Prior to the recent shift that and the reverse number were always down in the 1-2% range at most.

Aren't they all important? Isn't the magnitude of the result a reason to assign importance to the cause?

Deaths in Vietnam were sad because we didn't really accomplish anything.Deaths from lung cancer are sad and happily we are getting somewhere in reducing them.Deaths from bad seat belts ... do we actually have a statistic on that? ... are sad because they are largely preventable. Likewise failure to use seat belts, which is very likely a bigger category.

All of which are many orders of magnitude larger than what happened in Benghazi. Heck, deaths in Afghanistan is 2.5 orders of magnitude larger. If you are going to scream about Benghazi, why not scream even louder about all these others?

So, are you saying that the magnitude doesn't matter? That 4 lives lost in Benghazi are more important than 40,000 lost to not having insurance? Not to mind that it is 4 one time and the 40,000 are every year?!